Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker

Quote:

Paul Sanderson-Cimino wrote:

I think that Chris Hein's argument that it's about retaining a weapon is persuasive...but in addition to having no real experience doing that kind of live practice, I'm also suspicious of saying that techniques will magically start working better than judo/BJJ if you put a knife in one person's hand, or strap a sword at your waist. It seems like even if they're optimized for weapons, they should function empty-handed.

I don't buy this too much. Mostly because 95% of all aikido I've experienced was done without a weapon. My opinion is that if it was ment for weapons, we would not train empty handed.

Quote:

Paul Sanderson-Cimino wrote:

Another theory I'm considering (not mutually exclusive with the weapons one) is that aikido isn't so much a standalone, foundation art as it is an advanced study for people already competent in judo and grappling. There's some historic evidence for this, in the biographies of aikido greats.

This is why I started training in judo in the first place and found out how much I love fighting.

Quote:

Paul Sanderson-Cimino wrote:

Are you thinking from standup or from on the mat?

Both, I use some very weird wrist locks standing and from the knees. But I have tons of success in wrist locks from side control, north south, and the mount.

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker

Quote:

Don Magee wrote:

I don't buy this too much. Mostly because 95% of all aikido I've experienced was done without a weapon. My opinion is that if it was ment for weapons, we would not train empty handed.

Don,

I think that's about the same percentage of aikido that, in the past, you've suggested doesn't work. Maybe more people should train with weapons more often.

The men who developed the body of techniques of which aikido movements come from were not that interested in unarmed combat. They were required by law to carry swords, and used other weapons as well.

Quote:

Don Magee wrote:

I understand how you feel about using aikido in grappling. I try it every day. I am getting to a point where I can use some stuff against white belts with some reliability, but it is still harder to do then just judo and bjj.

The highest success I've had is with wrist locks. They are as easy to setup as armbars and chokes once you get some practice. It's fun watching the white belts be afraid to reach for you because of fear you will wrist lock them. However once you start playing with guys your level, those techniques are too low percentage to be something you should be using when higher percentage techniques are just as easy to setup and won't leave you so bad off when they fail.

If you look at more open empty-hand fighting, like UFC, the techniques of BJJ are low percentage. Most of them have their roots in the same period of Japanese history.

Now, let's look at the most successful empty-hand techniques: wrestling takedowns, ground and pound, boxing/muay thai, chokes, blocking punches/kicks, and using the guard to minimize the effect of strikes. If you face someone with a weapon, these techniques will cost you. Even if you "win" you will likely be severely injured. You have to respect the weapon. You have to isolate and control the weapon arm. The weapon creates the necessity of the "lower percentage" techniques. If you are using the weapon, your best bet is to maintain control of it and continue to use it.

Quote:

Paul Sanderson-Cimino wrote:

I'm also suspicious of saying that techniques will magically start working better than judo/BJJ if you put a knife in one person's hand, or strap a sword at your waist.

There's no magic to it. It's still quite difficult to use the techniques against a resisting opponent, but you will begin to see the reasoning behind it. But why take my word for it. I could be all wrong, so try it yourself. Get a tanto and some training partners, use BJJ/judo, and be honest about the "cuts" and "stabs" (I recommend striking below the neck only) you would have received and what probable effect they would have. Remember: a 3-4" folding knife can be extremely lethal.

There is nothing wrong with learning to hit hard, or grapple; they are excellent skills to have, and if you love a particular art, by all means, practice it, but it's wise to remember that the scope of physical conflict is much greater than 1-on-1 empty-hand fighting.

-Michael
"Through aiki we can feel the mind of the enemy who comes to attack and are thus able to respond immediately." - M. Mochizuki

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker

Quote:

Michael Varin wrote:

Don,

I think that's about the same percentage of aikido that, in the past, you've suggested doesn't work. Maybe more people should train with weapons more often.

The men who developed the body of techniques of which aikido movements come from were not that interested in unarmed combat. They were required by law to carry swords, and used other weapons as well.

If you look at more open empty-hand fighting, like UFC, the techniques of BJJ are low percentage. Most of them have their roots in the same period of Japanese history.

Now, let's look at the most successful empty-hand techniques: wrestling takedowns, ground and pound, boxing/muay thai, chokes, blocking punches/kicks, and using the guard to minimize the effect of strikes. If you face someone with a weapon, these techniques will cost you. Even if you "win" you will likely be severely injured. You have to respect the weapon. You have to isolate and control the weapon arm. The weapon creates the necessity of the "lower percentage" techniques. If you are using the weapon, your best bet is to maintain control of it and continue to use it.

There's no magic to it. It's still quite difficult to use the techniques against a resisting opponent, but you will begin to see the reasoning behind it. But why take my word for it. I could be all wrong, so try it yourself. Get a tanto and some training partners, use BJJ/judo, and be honest about the "cuts" and "stabs" (I recommend striking below the neck only) you would have received and what probable effect they would have. Remember: a 3-4" folding knife can be extremely lethal.

There is nothing wrong with learning to hit hard, or grapple; they are excellent skills to have, and if you love a particular art, by all means, practice it, but it's wise to remember that the scope of physical conflict is much greater than 1-on-1 empty-hand fighting.

So I ask this question, If aikido only works when defending weapons, why do we not just train always with uke using a weapon? When I practice playing 9-ball, I always use a pool cue and balls. When I practice swimming, I always use a pool, when I practice fencing, I always use a sword. But when I practice aikido, 99% of the time, it is punches, overhand strikes, and those yokomen strikes, wrist and lapel grabs, etc. Then every now and then we break out a tanto or jo and defend against that (I've done this maybe 4 times in my time in aikido. Oh and we do a jo kata every few months or so.

Most video's I see on the net are also empty handed. So again, it seems to me, that it is a poor way to train to defend weapons without actually having someone attack you with a weapon. In fact it could even work better for you, give a guy a rubber baton to attack with and he is going to commit to his strike more. The reasoning is because he won't have the mental block that hitting you is going to hurt you. So he can just swing for 'the kill'. The same is true with rubber knifes. It seems to me that giving noobs weapons to attack you in this manner would remove the fear of hitting you. Thus they would commit properly and allow us to train what we are trying to train.

The last thing I'd like to cover is this, knife defenses are a joke. Seriously, I think it is laughable every time I see a knife defense. No one will ever, ever, ever attack you like that with a knife. Not in prison, on the street, in the woods, in the ocean, etc. Well ok someone will attack you like that, but only if you hand them a knife and tell them to attack you like that and you are in a dojo. A real knife attack is going to come out of the blue, probably a opening sneak attack from behind. You won't know the knife is there until its stuck into your back. Then as he pulls it out, maybe you can defend yourself. But that is just my opinion from watching videos with knife attacks on the street and in prison. They usually walk up real close, pull the blade and stab short fast repeated blows to the midsection or face. No lunging, chopping, etc. The distances is defiantly not the range most knife defenses train. Anyways, that's just my pet peeve. I was impressed with my instructors defenses against the baseball bat swing with a joe. But I've yet to be impressed with any knife defense work I've seen, save the work I've seen from the dog brothers.

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker

The version of the "weapons complement" theory that I like best suggests that it's not so much about taking a weapon from someone as it is holding on to your own weapon when being seized. Although the former is there too. As Amdur stated in "Fighting On Your Knees, Part II":

Quote:

Ellis Amdur wrote:

Grappling techniques were explicitly for the battlefield, and thus, in the majority of them them, the shidachi ("doer" of the technique) was armed. The exceptions were joint-locking methods that preceded tying up a prisoner, and counters to weapon's attacks - primarily close combat with the enemy attacking with a knife or kodachi. The latter are preparation for what should never - but will - happen. You drop your weapon, it breaks, you are disarmed, and you are suddenly, at VERY close range, dealing with an armed enemy. These techniques - and those of innumerable similar schools - were done in iidori fashion - on one's knees.

He goes on to say that these latter "desperation techniques", while a small part of koryu, have received a greater emphasis since Edo.

He also deals with that "why isn't Daito-ryu/aikido training done with weapons?" question to some extent; basically, he says, that actually -was- the state of the art for empty-handed striking before boxing came along:

Quote:

Ellis Amdur wrote:

atemijutsu in jujutsu started by taking what they had - todomewaza (striking techniques to finish off a downed opponent) and converting them to standup. But without lots of testing, most people didn't know how difficult it is to damage or knockout a moving opponent using techniques suited for a pinned one. And the testing simply didn't occur - real fights with hands-and-feet between trained opponents (other than sumo) were few and far between.
[...]
The idea that yokomen and shomen are simulations of weapons attacks is quite an attractive one - yet such attacks were the rule, not the exception in every jujutsu school. Given no real reason to change - no outside input - they assumed it was the only way to fight. Karate and boxing were shocks to the imagination of Meiji martial arts practitioners, who had never conceived of hitting in that manner.

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker

Quote:

Paul Sanderson-Cimino wrote:

I think that Chris Hein's argument that it's about retaining a weapon is persuasive...but in addition to having no real experience doing that kind of live practice, I'm also suspicious of saying that techniques will magically start working better than judo/BJJ if you put a knife in one person's hand, or strap a sword at your waist. It seems like even if they're optimized for weapons, they should function empty-handed.

Well I don't think it works better then judo/bjj. In fact I believe that the roots of judo/bjj/aikido share their weapon orientation. However judo and bjj have been developed over time, through competition to make unarmed systems. They dropped the techniques that are really low percentage in unarmed fighting. Like wrist locks, shihonage, etc.

Now the reason Aikido retained these techniques is simple, there was no unarmed competition. No one ever found these to be low percentage unarmed techniques, so they kept them. The trouble with this, Aikidoka never learned how to actually apply the techniques, and what they were for, they never practiced them against resistance.

Now why are these techniques higher percentage with a weapon? The answer is simple, because of the necessity of controlling the weapon hand. In an unarmed fight, the striking hand can simply be checked, or kept in tight enough to not generate power. However a knife can generate huge amounts of power in a very tight space. In order to keep a knife from doing damage you much tightly control it (ie wrist grabbing). Now if you have to hold the weapon hand, in order to stay alive, your focus, and technique choice is going to be different then if you could skip holding the hand, and go to holding the core (unarmed fighting). So things like shihonage, sankyo, kotegaishi etc. are now higher percentage techniques.

We can chat about it all day, but the best thing to do is try it. Get an Aikido buddy, have have him try and stop you from "killing" him with a wooden knife. Notice how often he grabs and holds your wrist. Notice how often you get then the positions that Aikido techniques pop up. You don't have to take my word for it, just try it, you'll see. And anyone who wants to is always welcome at my dojo. We'll train together and talk about what we find out!

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Well I don't think it works better then judo/bjj. In fact I believe that the roots of judo/bjj/aikido share their weapon orientation. However judo and bjj have been developed over time, through competition to make unarmed systems. They dropped the techniques that are really low percentage in unarmed fighting. Like wrist locks, shihonage, etc.

Now the reason Aikido retained these techniques is simple, there was no unarmed competition. No one ever found these to be low percentage unarmed techniques, so they kept them. The trouble with this, Aikidoka never learned how to actually apply the techniques, and what they were for, they never practiced them against resistance.

Now why are these techniques higher percentage with a weapon? The answer is simple, because of the necessity of controlling the weapon hand. In an unarmed fight, the striking hand can simply be checked, or kept in tight enough to not generate power. However a knife can generate huge amounts of power in a very tight space. In order to keep a knife from doing damage you much tightly control it (ie wrist grabbing). Now if you have to hold the weapon hand, in order to stay alive, your focus, and technique choice is going to be different then if you could skip holding the hand, and go to holding the core (unarmed fighting). So things like shihonage, sankyo, kotegaishi etc. are now higher percentage techniques.

We can chat about it all day, but the best thing to do is try it. Get an Aikido buddy, have have him try and stop you from "killing" him with a wooden knife. Notice how often he grabs and holds your wrist. Notice how often you get then the positions that Aikido techniques pop up. You don't have to take my word for it, just try it, you'll see. And anyone who wants to is always welcome at my dojo. We'll train together and talk about what we find out!

Take care.

This makes me think of the mechanics of modern day knife attacks vs battlefield weapon attacks. I'd say these weapons defenses then (at least knife defenses) are from an era that has passed by. To know your attacker has a knife is probably an exception and not a rule to knife attacks.

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker

Quote:

Don Magee wrote:

This makes me think of the mechanics of modern day knife attacks vs battlefield weapon attacks. I'd say these weapons defenses then (at least knife defenses) are from an era that has passed by. To know your attacker has a knife is probably an exception and not a rule to knife attacks.

Fist let me say one more time for you Don. The majority of Aikido's techniques are designed for you to HAVE THE WEAPON. This means that YOU ARE THE ARMED GUY. So most of what Aikido teaches are not weapon defenses, but in actuality weapon use facilitators.

But for the sake of argument I'll argue Aikido as used to weapon defense system (which is the minority of it's teachings).

The techniques are not limited to knifes. Any thing held in the hand will do, it's just that knifes are likely the hardest to deal with in their range. If the day has gone by where people fight with hand held weapons, they yes, Aikido's techniques are useless. But I don't think we're there yet.

Watch any of these real life shows where people braking the law are on display. 80% of the time they come at the other guy with a weapon, they just pic up a rock, or a lamp, or what ever is handy and start swinging. They show a weapon in the hopes that the guy will give up his money, or what ever they want with out a struggle. These are the times that Aikido's techniques are useful.

Remember, as Michael Varin often says, assassinations are different then confrontations. This is to say that yes, people do plan to kill others. They plan out how to sneak up on them and stab them in the back. But there are also confrontations. A confrontation happens spur of the moment, when someone pulls a knife off the kitchen table and come at you. Or when someone simply wants your money, or to rape your wife. They pull out a weapon to scare you, in the hope that you won't struggle with them. It if far less common for someone to want to kill you then just humiliate you, or take what you have. You are less likely to run into an assassin then a mugger. Rapists are more common then serial killers. Confrontation is more common then assassination.

Really bad situations happen with weapons. If someone just wants to prove how tough they are (I call this ego fighting) they won't use a weapon cause it's cowardly. This is the type of fighting you will see in a bar, or on a school ground, or at a dance. These situations might hurt your ego if you lose a fight, but you won't die. However a bad situations is when someone wants to take your car, but you won't be able to go to work with out your car, and if you can't go to work you can't pay the rent. Someone trying to take your car, is likely going to use some sort of weapon to do it. This is when the techniques of Aikido are useful.

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Fist let me say one more time for you Don. The majority of Aikido's techniques are designed for you to HAVE THE WEAPON. This means that YOU ARE THE ARMED GUY. So most of what Aikido teaches are not weapon defenses, but in actuality weapon use facilitators.

But for the sake of argument I'll argue Aikido as used to weapon defense system (which is the minority of it's teachings).

The techniques are not limited to knifes. Any thing held in the hand will do, it's just that knifes are likely the hardest to deal with in their range. If the day has gone by where people fight with hand held weapons, they yes, Aikido's techniques are useless. But I don't think we're there yet.

Watch any of these real life shows where people braking the law are on display. 80% of the time they come at the other guy with a weapon, they just pic up a rock, or a lamp, or what ever is handy and start swinging. They show a weapon in the hopes that the guy will give up his money, or what ever they want with out a struggle. These are the times that Aikido's techniques are useful.

Remember, as Michael Varin often says, assassinations are different then confrontations. This is to say that yes, people do plan to kill others. They plan out how to sneak up on them and stab them in the back. But there are also confrontations. A confrontation happens spur of the moment, when someone pulls a knife off the kitchen table and come at you. Or when someone simply wants your money, or to rape your wife. They pull out a weapon to scare you, in the hope that you won't struggle with them. It if far less common for someone to want to kill you then just humiliate you, or take what you have. You are less likely to run into an assassin then a mugger. Rapists are more common then serial killers. Confrontation is more common then assassination.

Really bad situations happen with weapons. If someone just wants to prove how tough they are (I call this ego fighting) they won't use a weapon cause it's cowardly. This is the type of fighting you will see in a bar, or on a school ground, or at a dance. These situations might hurt your ego if you lose a fight, but you won't die. However a bad situations is when someone wants to take your car, but you won't be able to go to work with out your car, and if you can't go to work you can't pay the rent. Someone trying to take your car, is likely going to use some sort of weapon to do it. This is when the techniques of Aikido are useful.

Jez, I hate writing long posts....
Sorry.

I started writing a long post to this about the futility of self defense training in my area based on crime statistics and personal experience. I'll probably start a new thread though, as it really deserves its own thread. But in a nut shell, the crime in my area really doesn't support a need for self defense, unless you are a child or housewife. The majority of the crime seems to be domestic violence, thefts. However I need to do some more research as the internet is giving me some conflicting stats.

But I don't carry a weapon. If I did, it would be my handgun. So better served by training to retain and use a handgun. This would require me actually strapping on a toy gun of some type, and having people try to take it away from me while I try to "shoot" them. Something not done in my aikido class. We usually work from wrist grabs, lunge punches, and overhead chops.

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker

Hello
I would agree with Don, I think aikido tai-jutsu is designed to be used empty handed.
Personally I think aikido link to weapon is more than at the organic level. IE one can fine that movement that one does empty handed is the way one uses the Jo/Bokken or if we have a weapon in hand.
it is there but i think that there is a deeper connection.

As well as aikido, I practice medieval fencing and that includes empty handed, longsword spear, Messer (large knife/fashion), sword and buckler and dagger.
Please bear in mind that I only have a moderate experience in aikido and in medieval "fencing" (only 6-8 years in each.). I train at least twice in aikido a one once in medieval fencing. In aikido we do weapon every week.
There is surely plenty of thing that I miss compare to people that have done that 2 or 3 time longer than me but here it is
.
It seems to me that the problem people have with aikido is that the techniques do not work well in open hand context, if I can only acknowledge that some techniques should be more direct if used in "earnest", the underlying principles are very sound.

All the 15th manuscript wrestling in earnest looks more like aikido than anything else, though they have a tendency to put a koshi as often as the can. and it is a stand alone wtrestling/stiking sytem.
As well the sportier manuscript looks like bjj-judo. (And they usually appear in the 16th cent).
Regardless, for 15th cent wrestling is to be used to bypass a weapon. I.e. wrestle is engaged so that the opposition can not access his Messer/dagger or from a safe position whilst fencing with the sword or a spear (as we do in the body variation of the kumi tachi).
I think this is another way aikido related to weapon because if we assume easy access to a weapon, then attacks are much more committed and there is less jockeying for position as it gives time to access and deploy the weapon.

I see another way where aikido and weapons meets and this is at a more tactical level.
To cut it short, I can see lots of similitude between aikido and using 15th century weapons. The only difference is the timing and distance need to be adapted to open hands. It is much much easier to spar with longsword (a fencing helmet and a shinai with crossguard and here you go) than with open hands. And I found out that more than the technique in itself it is moving to the right place that is crucial.
I think it is the same with open hands.

Phil

Last edited by philippe willaume : 07-11-2007 at 09:47 AM.

One Ringeck to bring them all and in darkness bind them,
In the Land of Windsor where phlip phlop live.

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker

Quote:

Don Magee wrote:

But I don't carry a weapon. If I did, it would be my handgun. So better served by training to retain and use a handgun. This would require me actually strapping on a toy gun of some type, and having people try to take it away from me while I try to "shoot" them. Something not done in my aikido class. We usually work from wrist grabs, lunge punches, and overhead chops.

Don, isn't it loud when stuff goes over your head like that?

Phil, I could be misreading your post, but it sounds like you agree with me.

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker

Quote:

Philippe Willaume wrote:

I think this is another way aikido related to weapon because if we assume easy access to a weapon, then attacks are much more committed and there is less jockeying for position as it gives time to access and deploy the weapon.

A testable hypohesis -- give each person a tanto or bokken in their belt (the latter might be sort of cumbersome for safety, but...) and then put them at arms length. See whether or not aikido training is helpful. (I can think of a few possible techniques...like if you're cross-wrist-grabbed while grabbing a katana, you can apply nikyo with your hand or the tsuka.)

It still seems like the methods should be -usable- in regular unarmed grappling, even if they aren't optimal. I dunno.

I recall seeing this sort of thing demonstrated at at Friendship Demo or something. Not the aliveness part, but the "Aikido waza as ways to get a sword out". Wasn't Shoji Nishio-sensei interested in this aspect of aikido?

Hello,
Sorry, chris
I though your take was that aikido is not a "stand alone" empty handed system.
Nonetheless, I think we agree on it is coming from a time where you expect your opponent to be armed.

Paul,
Personally, I associate weapon access in aikido with late sensei Bill Smith.
Personally I think aikido is a good open hand system.

But to be fair, I can understand where Don comes from
We practice from 16 from (ie way of attack) and we have 9 techniques per form. There is a lots of atemi and we kinds of mean it. And the Guv'nor is quite found of koshi

On the side of all that we practice hije jime, jgije garami and other niceties here and there that are kind of extra curricular.
The said techniques have an omote and ura when it is possible and not too farfetched
And we do weapon very regularly (kumi-x and x dori awasia and so on).

This is not a mine is better bigger than yours, it is just to point that there is probably a difference in what each individuals is used to.

phil

One Ringeck to bring them all and in darkness bind them,
In the Land of Windsor where phlip phlop live.

I guess my point is that if you are training a weapon art, then train a weapon art. I should see every single person on the mat sporting a weapon. The whole idea of "If you put a weapon in his hand it works" just seems silly no matter if it's uke or nage.

I guess it comes from my belief in aliveness. I think it is silly to train something other then in the manner you plan to use it. I don't run to be a better bike rider. I ride a bike.

I agree Don. Aikido is pretty much about the "DO". the way of aiki. So the weapons work in aikido, in my exerperiences are there to teach us the DO...not to teach us how to be better stick, knife, or sword fighters.

To me, that makes all the difference in the world when you train.

I think many take what we learn in DO based arts and try and transfer it literally. Sure, the bunkai, and the application, and principles are all there. I would not argue that.

However, as you state, when you approach things from a standpoint of aliveness, then much of what we do to learn the DO seems like a very inefficient delivery system for teaching.

I try to be very careful about discerning between DO versus reality. I think that is what is most key when approaching the whole weapons issue.

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker

Quote:

Paul Sanderson-Cimino wrote:

It still seems like the methods should be -usable- in regular unarmed grappling, even if they aren't optimal. I dunno.

Well they (Aikido techniques) do pop up sometimes in unarmed situations, but rarely. The reason they pop up rarely is because of the set up.

It's important to train from the positions you are going to be in; what Tim Cartmell would call "the set up". It's hard to pull techniques out randomly and do them. You will most likely (in an "alive" situation) do techniques from the set up which you practice them. Further, some of Aikido's techniques can not be done from set ups other then we see in Aikido forms (shihonage for example).

The focus of the confrontation in an armed fight is different then the focus of the fight in an unarmed fight. In an unarmed fight I can go right for the core, I can grab and control the core of your body. In an armed situation I must go for your core (center) via the weapon hand, or else I will be mortally wounded.

This focus on the weapon hand is what makes Aikido techniques "set ups" appear. With out the set up, it's hard to do the technique. Same reason many Bjj guys have a hard time going from gi to no gi, or judo guys from judo clinches to non gi clinches. When your set ups change so does your game.

Don,
Look, the principals of having something in your hand change very little depending on what it is. Size matters, and the way you use it. But if you can get your hand free, then you can use your weapon. You don't need to specialize in weapon retention for a 1000 different weapons. Aikido has methods for clearing small medium and large size weapons, that (in my experience) is enough.

I'm into training with aliveness myself(I don't like that word though) , check out our youtube page ( http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=ChuShinTani ), you'll see how we train, its pretty "alive". I had the theory I'm currently expressing for years, the idea came to me after I fought with the dog brothers, and it doesn't' get much more alive then that.

The techniques of Aikido never worked for me when I fought mma style fighting, or bjj. However they did work for me once I had a weapon in my hand. This theory is based on "alive" training, and not intellectual conjecture.

Forgetting techniques for the moment, all movement is powered by specific mechanical principles. Techniques are simply the result of motion and mechanics.

Having some experience in Arnis, I have to agree with Doug, Lynn and George and to add that weapons are essentially an extension of the body - i.e. the mechanics in either case are based on the same principles. So, whether you (or the opponent - both or one or the other) are armed or unarmed, some adaptation to the situation may be required.

I've had a similar discussion with someone on another forum, who has 45 years experience in Isshinryu karate, judo, jujitsu and aikido. His opinion is that both karate and aikido are based on sword mechanics, however there are differences in how forces are delivered and manipulated in both arts. The rest our discussion gels with what Doug wrote.

I guess my point is that if you are training a weapon art, then train a weapon art. I should see every single person on the mat sporting a weapon. The whole idea of "If you put a weapon in his hand it works" just seems silly no matter if it's uke or nage.

I guess it comes from my belief in aliveness. I think it is silly to train something other then in the manner you plan to use it. I don't run to be a better bike rider. I ride a bike.

Hello don yes I do agree with you.
I would say that aikido is not a weapon art, I think it has it's root in weapons, weapons access and weapons retention.
Every bit of weapon we do in aikido is technically spund sense but we are missing bits and pieces to make it a proper sword arts. IE a way to reliably break distance to get in striking range safely.
Well the way we do it anyway, some other style seems to be more weapon based, the way we do it is to enhance our body techniques.

We start from the bind (when the sword are crossed), and this is a good trick because you do not have to estimate distance and you by pass the entry so it is much easier to get a consistent starting point.
I think pedagogically, it makes lots of sense but the trick with fencing is to gain that entry. And I think that is the crucible of the relation with weapon , and you can see that in what Eyrie wrote.

What he wrote and the way he expresses it, is typical of a fencer/weapon way on conceptualizing fight. It is very difficult for someone that does not have a modicum of weapon pratice to concretely understand the implication of that.

The art of fencing in earnest (this is not so much the case in Olympic fencing) is to gain the "true place." As Gorge Silver calls it
To summarise it quickly the true place is where you can use proper body mechanic to deliver the strike, in range to hit your opponent and where he can not hit you directly.
He is then forced to defend and you can use his defence to create a direct threat and so on.
phil

One Ringeck to bring them all and in darkness bind them,
In the Land of Windsor where phlip phlop live.

Just for clarity I cut the post in two
If you understand what the true place is then it does not matter what weapon you are using from knife to messer (or katana) to longsword (or tashi) to Zweihander to spear and halberd passing by single stick or quarterstaff even sword and bucler
There will be change as to where hat true place actually is as distance changes according to the weapon but relative to each weapon that true place is always the same.

With that in mind open hand is just and other weapon. It makes sense to be in that true place even with open hands, just in case our opponent carries a weapon

It s all well and good but I think that you can not dissociate that with atemi.

If your opponent tries to intercept you when you are getting to the true place, you will always have a timing advantage on him and he will probably have to extend.
This what the BJJ/MMa guy call a Fucktard attack, and they are king of right, when fencing I call that messing up.

But if he doesn't to do that we need a strike or a thrust to take advantage of that true place. If we do not, he just needs to re-align his body and the true place is not the true place for us anymore.(but now it is for him)
Making use of the place implicitly require for either him to give something to use or for us to take it.

Phil

One Ringeck to bring them all and in darkness bind them,
In the Land of Windsor where phlip phlop live.

I understand the argument. An empty hand is just another weapon, so a weapon system can just deal with it as thus. I'd likely buy that argument; if I hadn't fought as much as I have.

Here's the thing, when you engage in conflict with another person, every little advantage you get counts. This is why we spend hours making sure we turn our hips just so, and move in at the right angles. It's why weight classes in competitive things are often less then 10 lb. different. Small things count, and multiple small things count a lot.

Now in a non weapon conflict, I can "round the edges" quite a bit. In an unarmed fight it is superior to cover the body (like a boxer does) for a strike then it is to block or blend with it. In an armed fight, a cover means getting wounded, likely severely. Now if I'm fighting a skilled unarmed fighter, and he's trained in methods of body covering, and I expect to blend with every strike, he's going to destroy me.

Unarmed methods of fighting are striped down to the essentials of what you need to do in an unarmed fight. In an unarmed system, you can simply grab some ones core, and pull them down (a la Greco-Roman wrestling). This will get you killed in an armed confrontation, putting on a waist lock is just begging to get stabbed.

In Aikido we train methods that are ideal for weapon conflict. We don't do waist locks, bear hugs, head locks ect. Because those things are too dangerous when facing an armed attacker, and to easy to escape when you are armed. Aikido techniques don't afford themselves the "edge rounding" that unarmed techniques do.

So if you try and use the methods we practice in Aikido in an unarmed fight, you will simply be out passed. You cannot keep up (unarmed) with a guy using an unarmed system. He can do all of his techniques faster and more surely then you can.

The beauty of this is that the opposite is also true. If he tries his unarmed methods against an armed attacker, he would quickly see why we (Aikidoka) don't practice those methods. Even if he gets in past the initial cut or strike, his headlock, or body lock is going to get him stabbed.

There is another similar story about Takamura sensei that is also told. In a similar situation to the one in the article Takamura pulled a knife on a BJJer who had him in the mount. People who saw it said it appeared as if the guy levitated off him.

What it comes down to is that aikido descends from arts employed by swordsman for use in a venue that assumes bladed weapons and multiple attackers. I think you need to know this information to do aikido successfully. If you impose different assumptions either your aikido will change its essential nature to fit those new assumptions or because of the miss-match your aikido will be inefficient and ineffective in the new venue, like driving a screw with a hammer.

Have you ever put on Bogu and tried to disarm a semi-skilled Kendoka really trying to hit you? You should try it sometime if you get the opportunity, it puts the "bokken disarm" concept in a whole new light.

I've never actually done this, but I had an instructor once who was big on sword work. He studied Kendo (I believe it was Kendo, might have been something else) as well as Aikido.

He said a lot of things that stick in my mind years later, but one which I think applies:

"If you are facing a person with a sword, get used to the idea that you are going to get cut. If you can live with that, you have a chance of surviving. If getting cut is a problem for you, you're going to die."

That's probably not exactly how he said it, but it's pretty close, I think. And he said this many times. Sometimes it was a knife, rather than a sword.

I've thought about this a lot over the years when practicing weapons defenses. I'm by no means an expert in this area, but I believe he has a point.

I agree with much of the above; this has gone a long way in giving me a (potential) answer to the question of how aikido can be 1) seemingly very sophisticated and well-developed and 2) seemingly of little use in its (at first) apparent venue -- weaponless fighting.

One caveat, though: I think that it's important not to start saying that aikido is meant to help an unarmed person take weapons off of multiple assailants. I much prefer the description of "grappling techniques for when two people (who have weapons on them but not readied) get into close quarters" or "when a person has got a weapon out but is being prevented from using that weapon effectively by a hold". (I think it would be interesting to look at judo and wrestling in this light: the former at least seems to also have this idea potentially going.)

I like Chris' explanation regarding specialization, as well. It's not that aikido training is totally inapplicable in a pure unarmed fight; just that it's not specialized for it. It might even be worse than "natural reactions" or basic brawling.

I'm going to see if I can put together some practice under these sorts of conditions. If "Aiki-boxing" and related exercises help show what aikido's not, the next step might be finding what aikido is.

I've never actually done this, but I had an instructor once who was big on sword work. He studied Kendo (I believe it was Kendo, might have been something else) as well as Aikido.

He said a lot of things that stick in my mind years later, but one which I think applies:

"If you are facing a person with a sword, get used to the idea that you are going to get cut. If you can live with that, you have a chance of surviving. If getting cut is a problem for you, you're going to die."

That's probably not exactly how he said it, but it's pretty close, I think. And he said this many times. Sometimes it was a knife, rather than a sword.

I've thought about this a lot over the years when practicing weapons defenses. I'm by no means an expert in this area, but I believe he has a point.

I have always been given the impression that most cases getting cut with a sword (as opposed to a small knife) usually means you are going to die anyways.

There is another similar story about Takamura sensei that is also told. In a similar situation to the one in the article Takamura pulled a knife on a BJJer who had him in the mount. People who saw it said it appeared as if the guy levitated off him.

What it comes down to is that aikido descends from arts employed by swordsman for use in a venue that assumes bladed weapons and multiple attackers. I think you need to know this information to do aikido successfully. If you impose different assumptions either your aikido will change its essential nature to fit those new assumptions or because of the miss-match your aikido will be inefficient and ineffective in the new venue, like driving a screw with a hammer.

While the article makes a good point and I agree you should never assume anything. I find it funny that he does not touch on the fact the he himself assumed Donny would not kill him. He assumed his attacker would be of a sport match mindset. While warning us about assumptions, he made and hedged his bets on his very own.